Courts & Law

Federal Court in Oklahoma Rules in Favor of Marriage Equality

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In the reddest of the Red States, Oklahoma, the U.S. District Court has struck down that state's discriminatory ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional, and ruled in favor of marriage equality. Oklahoma’s Ban on Gay Marriage Is Unconstitutional, Judge Rules:

EqualA federal judge in Oklahoma ruled Tuesday that the state’s constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage violated the federal Constitution, the latest in a string of legal victories for gay rights and one that occurred in the heart of the Bible Belt.

The state’s ban on marriage by gay and lesbian couples is “an arbitrary, irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a governmental benefit,” wrote Judge Terence C. Kern of United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, in Tulsa, deciding a case that had languished for nine years. The amendment, he said, is based on “moral disapproval” and does not advance the state’s asserted interests in promoting heterosexual marriage or the welfare of children.

“We’re jubilant, we’re over the moon,” said one of the plaintiffs, Sharon Baldwin, 45, who has lived with her partner and co-plaintiff, Mary Bishop, 52, for 17 years.

The two both work as editors at The Tulsa World newspaper and had just arrived at work on Tuesday afternoon when the city editor told them of the decision.

“We’re taking the day off,” Ms. Baldwin said.

Kavanagh for the kleptocracy of the ‘Kochtopus’!

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Last year I posted that the Goldwater Institute declares war on public employees:

Union-fightNow the Goldwater Institute "Kochtopus" Death Star wants to extend this fiscally reckless amd irresponsible idea [Tucson public employee pension initiative] to state and local governments in Arizona through a statewide initiative. The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reports, Initiative would tie government spending to pension funding:

A proposed ballot measure would effectively bar state and local governments from increasing spending across the board until its employee pension systems are adequately funded.

[The purposefully deceptively named] Responsible Budgets Act, which was filed with the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office on Friday, would bar political entities with underfunded pension systems from increasing spending, except for inflation and population growth. A provision in the initiative defines “adequately funded” as 80 percent funded.

[I-02-2014 Responsible Budgets in Support of Proposition __ and Petition Serial # ____, full text of initiative: PDF]

I am guessing that the Goldwater Institute "Kochtopus" Death Star is also behind this latest bill attacking the state employee pension system as well, sponsored by its waterboy, Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills). Lawmaker seeks to allow cuts in public pensions:

An Arizona lawmaker wants the state constitution amended to allow cuts to public employee pensions and increases in employee contributions if the systems are badly underfunded.

Republican Rep. John Kavanagh introduced a bill [HCR 2001 (.pdf)] that would refer the proposal to the voters. He said in an interview he is targeting automatic cost-of-living increases but acknowledged nothing in his proposal would prevent cuts to existing pensions.

Religious bigotry rears its ugly head in the Arizona Legislature

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Earlier this month I told you about the bill by Rep. Steve Montenegro (R-Litchfield Park) to make it illegal for government to “require a minister to solemnize a marriage inconsistent with a minister's sincerely held religious beliefs.” A solution in search of a non-existent problem. As I said at the time:

I commend Rep. Montenegro for trying to keep his measure as narrow as possible. The New Mexico wedding photographer case he cites is an example of an individual claiming an overly broad definition of "religious liberty" to essentially assert a license to discriminate against members of the public.Whitye-only This is a slippery slope which can easily be abused to discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, sex and religion simply by invoking the "magic words" that it is "my sincerely held religious beliefs." If this wedding photographer had refused services to African-Americans or Jews, or to Arab-Americans and Muslims instead of "the gays," he would have been rightly condemned as a bigot. A "get out of jail free card" for compliance with laws based upon the mere assertion of "sincerely held religious beliefs" leads to anarchy.

Rep. Montenegro's restraint is not shared by Arizona's most corrupt state senator, Steve Yarbrough (R-Chandler), who uses his position to write charter school bills to steer state funding to his Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization to benefit himself financially. It's like writing checks to yourself. Unbelievably, this allegedly does not violate Arizona's ethics rules for legislators. (See Steve Murtarore at the Arizona Eagletarian for the latest self-dealing by Sen. Yarbrough, regarding a KPHO Channel 5 investigation by Morgan Loew. Is Republican Sen. Steve Yarbrough's approach the only thing corrupt in the Arizona Legislature? and Will you tolerate Steve Yarbrough's brazen self-service?)

Federal Court Ruling: Is this Beginning of the End for Net Neutrality?

by

We-the-persons750-sig-sm72-b-wby Pamela Powers Hannley

If you don’t like the way Facebook shovels advertising and promoted posts into your “news feed”, instead of the latest photos of your friends’ vacations, you’re really not going to like the new and improved Internet.

Yesterday, a U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) doesn’t have the power to regulate net neutrality. What does this mean for you? Internet providers like Verizon can now cut deals with corporate giants to accelerate their content, while leaving non-commercial Internet content–like those pesky independent blogs– in the dustbin of a Google search.

From Think Progress…

Net neutrality rules were issued by the FCC to prevent broadband providers from favoring some content over other content, potentially even their own. As the two-judge majority explains, “a broadband provider like Comcast might limit its end-user subscribers’ ability to access the New York Times website if it wanted to spike traffic to its own news website, or it might degrade the quality of the connection to a search website like Bing if a competitor like Google paid for prioritized access.”

Even as they struck down these rules Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit judges concede that this concern is real, writing, “broadband providers represent a threat to Internet openness and could act in ways that would ultimately inhibit the speed and extent of future broadband deployment.” The problem, however, derives from an earlier FCC decision that even advocates of net neutrality like Free Press president Craig Aaron say was a failure of FCC leadership to “ground its Open Internet rules on solid legal footing.” [Emphasis added.]

Gov. Brewer doesn’t ‘get’ the concept of federalism

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie: Governor Jan Brewer clearly doesn't "get" the concept of federalism, co-equal branches of government, and judicial review. In response to the U.S. Supreme Court's denial of Arizona's abortion law appeal in Horne v. Isaacson on Monday, Brewer's PR guy Howie Fischer wants us all to know that: The high-court decision drew derision … Read more